If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I completely understand the constitutionality of privacy, especially how it applies to the overreach of the crown in the 18th century.
Im just saying that some of the freedoms we enjoy have consequencs.

WQe dont seem to mind to much when we trample the rights of Gang members when they do sweeps and association penalties right?
I mean on a philosophical level, we say...oh, that is wrong, but on a practical level we are happy to see a bunch of jerks get what they have coming.

If a Police officer ignores right to search laws and enters a home and finds a child victim being molested, should he excuse himself and ignore what he saw?

Its a slippery slope,I understand that holding the line is the only way to keep from an avalanche,Im just speaking from personal experiences and the people Ive known that have been the most secretive,wind up being the ones up to no good.

I don't know how gang laws work, but if they are peacefully assembling, then they are fine. But the First Amendment only protects peaceful assembling. If they are killing people or committing crimes then that isn't peaceful.

If an officer goes into the home and finds a child being molested, then sadly yes he should leave. We have rules and laws for a reason. The exception is never good and almost always terrible. But if you start carving out exceptions here and there, then soon you no longer have the rule of law. What you get is a rule by situation and that is never going to end well. That will lead to a tyranny or dictatorship and a situation where we fear our government.

It really doesn't matter if people who are secretive are the ones up to no good. It needs to be proved the right way. Breaking the rules is what the criminals do, not what the cops should be doing.

Even beyond the Constitution, there is a reason that we have the warrant or oversight process beyond the idea of freedom. If you require a warrant to search my home, then it continues and extends the assumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If you require a warrant and a certain amount of specificity with regards to what you want to search, then it continues and extends the burden of evidence onto the prosecution and not on the defendant.

No one here will argue (at least to my knowledge) that there is not a time and a place when the police must be able to search documents or files in order to prosecute a crime. But they can't just do it because they want to, they must first prove that there is a reason that those files need searching and draw a direct connection between those files and a crime that has been committed.

I don't know how gang laws work, but if they are peacefully assembling, then they are fine. But the First Amendment only protects peaceful assembling. If they are killing people or committing crimes then that isn't peaceful.

If an officer goes into the home and finds a child being molested, then sadly yes he should leave. We have rules and laws for a reason. The exception is never good and almost always terrible. But if you start carving out exceptions here and there, then soon you no longer have the rule of law. What you get is a rule by situation and that is never going to end well. That will lead to a tyranny or dictatorship and a situation where we fear our government.

It really doesn't matter if people who are secretive are the ones up to no good. It needs to be proved the right way. Breaking the rules is what the criminals do, not what the cops should be doing.

I disagree with not stopping a molestation. If you enter illegally, you've already broken the law and leaving wont change that. To not stop the molestation would be immoral and possibly even criminal since it would make him complicit.

I disagree with not stopping a molestation. If you enter illegally, you've already broken the law and leaving wont change that. To not stop the molestation would be immoral and possibly even criminal since it would make him complicit.

Well I don't know how it would make him complicit, but I can tell you that the molester is never going to see a jail cell after the trial if the officer interferes. His case would be a slam dunk for even the most incompetent small town defense lawyer.

I don't know how gang laws work, but if they are peacefully assembling, then they are fine. But the First Amendment only protects peaceful assembling. If they are killing people or committing crimes then that isn't peaceful.

If an officer goes into the home and finds a child being molested, then sadly yes he should leave. We have rules and laws for a reason. The exception is never good and almost always terrible. But if you start carving out exceptions here and there, then soon you no longer have the rule of law. What you get is a rule by situation and that is never going to end well. That will lead to a tyranny or dictatorship and a situation where we fear our government.

It really doesn't matter if people who are secretive are the ones up to no good. It needs to be proved the right way. Breaking the rules is what the criminals do, not what the cops should be doing.

we have just crossed over into one of the most relevant questions we face as a people.

There is no simple answer.
I admire your discipline.Without people such as yourself, we would be lost.
I mean that seriously.
the problem is,if you were to "open the books" so to speak on peoples "ethics'
i think you would be terribly dissapointed.
the reality of how this world operates is ugly.
there is a duplicity at work in nearly everything.
everyone is up to something.
i was raised by the guidlines you embrace, and have seen over and over without fail in every circumstance from employees to employers, from owners to customers, from cops and criminals everyone is always doing something they shouldnt.
Cops ARE setting up "marks" all day...they tell people whatever they can think of to violate their rights ALL DAY.
I thought I smelled Marijuanna.....You fit the description of a suspect...I was following a "runner"....

Our buisness leaders engage in fraud and larceny
Our moral leaders engage in sinful behaviours
Our politicians think of themselves and their benefactors before there constituency

Im not justifying it, im just observeing.
Sometimes rules are broken, sometimes for the good of the whole sometimes not,but we must admit to ourselves our flaws and have a more maleable approach to situations,we cant sadly turn our back on that kid...we just cant.
The rule isnt more important then the consequence of not following it all the time.
That is where the whole patriot act and this buisness of reading emails is coming from.No one is going to come out and admit it, but they are happily trampleling every constitutional right to privacy we have to catch terrorist plots.
what they are doing is ignoring 90% of what they hear, and the other 9% of things that they feel are egrigious enough to act on, they figure out away to catch the "perps" without giving up the fact they were tipped off illegally.

I do believe that all scenarios have a right and a wrong outcome. The difference is who the right and wrong are judged by and that is an important distinction.

In the situation of the officer walking in a molester (assuming no warrant), it is obviously right for the officer to stop the molester. The same for the child, it is right for the officer to stop the action. However, as sad as this makes me, from the molestor's point of view it is wrong and it is also wrong for society. Not because molestation is acceptable but because the officer has barged into the home of a citizen without proper authorization (warrant).

I won't argue that people fail time and time again to live up to the standards that we should be living up to. But I don't think that is an argument to lower the standards we expect from ourselves. It is a call to get (make) people live up to the standards that we should be living up to.

I completely understand the constitutionality of privacy, especially how it applies to the overreach of the crown in the 18th century.
Im just saying that some of the freedoms we enjoy have consequencs.

WQe dont seem to mind to much when we trample the rights of Gang members when they do sweeps and association penalties right?
I mean on a philosophical level, we say...oh, that is wrong, but on a practical level we are happy to see a bunch of jerks get what they have coming.

If a Police officer ignores right to search laws and enters a home and finds a child victim being molested, should he excuse himself and ignore what he saw?

Its a slippery slope,I understand that holding the line is the only way to keep from an avalanche,Im just speaking from personal experiences and the people Ive known that have been the most secretive,wind up being the ones up to no good.

Your not making any sense. So the police should be able to just search your house or property anytime they want just for the hell off it?

hmmm, well if your asking ME how I would address the problem, rather then speaking on Hypotheticals....

I would take a more libertarian view on crime so there would be less hypocrasy and less concern for issues of privacy.

A lot of things that we feel the need to hide are either concerns of imoral or illegal behaviour.
by decriminalizing those, and then strictly enforcing a new set of disclosure laws, there would be little to complain about in the governments indiscretions.

that isnt to say that they can go hog wild, but in the event they feel a supportable need, and they can show there was a "time" issue in securing a warrent, then :
1) they find nothing
2)they find a non criminal issue which they legaly cannot divulge.
3)they find one of the serious crimes we must have a better ability to stop.

Look guys, Im playing devils advocate here, I personally am not a big fan of law enforcement period.
i think they already abuse their authority and do a crappy job most of the time.
So my take on the matter is lets stop casting stones at people for doing things that people do.
lets make criminality a very small umbrella.
Violence,stealing.
you cant beat/kill someone....you cant take their things.
Other then that dont tell me what to do.

My original though had more to do with a observation of mine rather then a political opinon.Like I said the cops, the news cameras, the clergy are welcome to walk in my home any time they want, it wouldnt bother me beyond the notion they should have to ask first...I mean you guys read how freely I share my opinons(lol).
If someone finds my behavioural traits so fascinating that they would rather WATCH me living instead of having a life of their own...knock your sox off.(lol)
Im not shy, or embarrassed by anything I do. Be it smoking a joint, or whackin off to porn, while my wife is sleeping...its alll goood(TMI right?)

But I do get that most people dont feel that way,at the same time we have had a sad stream of unspeakable acts people have done to innocents becasue they had a "right" to privacy.
Every time I think about this issue, I think of that nut job in autria that had his daughter locked in the basement and was raping her, making her give birth to thier incestuous children in the basement,and then leaving the kids on his own doorstep for his wife to find with a note saying "mom and dad" please take care of my baby for me....I wish I could get me hands on people like that...

Since when are libertarians not concerned about privacy? This is news to me, it was my understanding that they tended to take privacy concerns more seriously than most other people.

Of course people tend to hide the acts that they are committing that they know are wrong or illegal. But there are plenty of acts and records that I keep that are not wrong or illegal and I will keep them private. The access information to my bank accounts, passwords for all the sites that I use, emails sent between myself and friends/family/colleagues are just a few examples of the things that I have every right to keep secret and the government needs to present a case for why they need access to them. The default position is no, and to change the default they must present evidence that demonstrates the need for those things for a specific purpose. It may create an inconvenience and I won't even deny that it may hide evidence from the police at times. But that is a small price to pay for the expectations of privacy on the whole. The egregious breaches of privacy that have happened in this country and in other nations (past and present) serve as a worrisome reminder to what happens when you allow your privacy to be breached by default.

The cops, news media, and clergy have ZERO right to come into your home without your permission. This isn't a gray area, this is one of the most black and white cases that we have. There is a reason that they call it "your" home, not "everyone's" home.

You point to one case where the right to privacy led to a bad outcome. It is not the only one in recorded history, I will never contest this. But in the grand scheme of things there have been far more abuses of power and due to a limitation on the expectation of freedom than abuses caused by an expectation of privacy. In countries where there is no expectation of privacy, the government (China and Russia have become pros at this) will take you from your home and you disappear. There is no trace of you and you certainly never expect to have any privacy. You sit in fear and wonder when you will be taken away from offending the wrong official or expressing the wrong thought.

It is my ardent believe, and maybe people out there will not side with me even if they support the right to privacy. I would rather let 1,000,000 bad people get away with doing bad things because of the right to privacy than have 1 good person doing good things have their privacy invaded because someone got overly suspicious and thought it might be a good idea to check just in case.

libertarians have a less intrusive view on personal freedoms.
That was what I intended to convey.
Most Libertarians Ive listened to support the decriminalization of a whole lot of personal freedom issues.
My notions on Privacy are my own, and just something(once again) that I have ofetn found to be true. The most ardent supporters of privacy are the ones with the worst secrets to hide.

In regards to your last statement, i think that maybe hyperbole got a hold of you there.
The whole notion of Government or society is based on producing the best results for everyone isnt it?
see, I guess what Im asking is...put aside the doomsday, 1984, Farenheit 451 stuff and ask yourself what is the big deal? Now I get it, for some people their thoughts and feelings are enormously private...I dont know why, but...OK.I respect that.

I just dont feel that way.I try to live every moment in my life making sure I dont feel that way.If I would be ashamed or embarrassed or worried about something I might say or write or do, then I dont do it.period. Not becasue Im worried someone else will find out but becasue I, will know, and I will be the worst prosecutor of my charecater then anyone else could possibly hope to be.

Well if you aren't concerned about people's privacy, then I don't think your views warrant any reference or comparison to libertarianism. You can't really claim that a couple of your views line up with the libertarian view and the rest don't and go around claiming libertarianism or bringing it up in the same vein as your arguments. That seems counter productive to me and a bit dishonest.

The motives for defending privacy are irrelevant to me. Everyone is entitled to their privacy, regardless of the reason. Whether it is that they are hiding something illegal or just because they want it. I don't care the motive.

I don't think it is government's responsibility to produce the best results for everyone. Mostly because it can't possibly do that. There is no capability in the government to do this and there can't be even if the government is given 100% control and was entirely void of corruption.

This isn't just a doomsday scenario rooted in dystopic books. These scenarios exist in the real world. Remember the Chinese dissident that came to this country not too long ago? He came here to escape the very conditions that giving the government the level of ability to restrict our privacy causes. His case is not unique among governments that are given a higher level of control over the privacy of their citizens. It is a common occurrence in China, Russia, and many 3rd world countries. The very same people you claim abuse their power turn that extra power into more abuse.

I also do not live my life in a way that I feel I must hide all my actions from everyone around me but I'll be damned if you or anyone is going to stop me from keeping what I want to keep secret, secret. It is not your right, nor the government's right, to snoop through my life. The only person who has this right is me. I may give this privilege to others or the government may submit for a warrant with specifics about why this information is necessary. But that is the only way they may get this information.

libertarians have a less intrusive view on personal freedoms.
That was what I intended to convey.
Most Libertarians Ive listened to support the decriminalization of a whole lot of personal freedom issues.
My notions on Privacy are my own, and just something(once again) that I have ofetn found to be true. The most ardent supporters of privacy are the ones with the worst secrets to hide.

In regards to your last statement, i think that maybe hyperbole got a hold of you there.
The whole notion of Government or society is based on producing the best results for everyone isnt it?
see, I guess what Im asking is...put aside the doomsday, 1984, Farenheit 451 stuff and ask yourself what is the big deal? Now I get it, for some people their thoughts and feelings are enormously private...I dont know why, but...OK.I respect that.

I just dont feel that way.I try to live every moment in my life making sure I dont feel that way.If I would be ashamed or embarrassed or worried about something I might say or write or do, then I dont do it.period. Not becasue Im worried someone else will find out but becasue I, will know, and I will be the worst prosecutor of my charecater then anyone else could possibly hope to be.

The notion of government is definitely not based on producing the best results for everyone. The notion of government is to create a structure that allows us to interact with each other in a reasonably fair manner. The ends do not justify the means.

The notion of government is definitely not based on producing the best results for everyone. The notion of government is to create a structure that allows us to interact with each other in a reasonably fair manner. The ends do not justify the means.

If you were to sum up my points into one (probably overused quote), it would be this one.